SZCRS & Anor v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 908

[2005] HCATrans 908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S276 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZCRS

First Applicant

SZCRT

Second Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2005, AT 9.46 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are citizens of India and are husband and wife.  The first applicant claims to be entitled to refugee status on account of a well‑founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion and of his Sindhi ethnicity.  The second applicant’s entitlement to a visa depends upon that of her husband.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the first applicant a protection visa.  After inviting the applicants to attend a hearing, which invitation the applicants declined, the Tribunal considered that the written evidence provided by the applicants was “stated in the most general of terms” and was insufficient to make findings in their favour.  The Tribunal was unable to be satisfied on the material before it that the first applicant had a well‑founded fear of persecution should he return to India.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court dismissed the application for failure to comply with an order to file an amended application particularising the claim for relief.  The Federal Magistrate further observed that there was “no indication of any error of law on the part of the [Tribunal] or any lack of procedural fairness or any bias or bad faith”.  An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Edmonds J.

We have considered the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  The applicants’ written case is a pro forma document of no assistance to the Court whatsoever.  There would be no prospect of success in any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  Accordingly special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.48 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED